iWatch

So there are some 'credible' rumors from places like the New York Times that Apple is working on some sort of wearable computing device that goes around one's wrist like one of those old-fashioned wrist watches (I haven't seen one of those anyone under 35 I know, in years).

Curved glass seems to be a theme, suggesting something more substantial (a large screen?) than a simple rubber Nike-style fuelband that tracks activity, something that Tim Cook has been photographed wearing.

What will be the purpose of this device? Will fashion be one purpose? If there is indeed a large screen, perhaps OLED, one could imagine the device's screen showing something fashionable, perhaps a pleasing pattern or color.Will there be a biometric automatic identification+login with the Apple ecosystem?Will it run iOS, and if so why? What kind of apps, besides Clock?

What kind of hardware-- will it use something like a low-power single core Cortex A9 or something even lower power like that found in the iPod nano?

like one of those old-fashioned wrist watches (I haven't seen one of those anyone under 35 I know, in years).

Really? I didn't know that watches are no longer a thing. Any particular reason? What do you use to tell the time? A smartphone?

Anyway, as to the iWatch, a few potential problems off the top of my head:

1) A watch made of glass? Really? If you drop it - oops. If something hits it when you're wearing it, sending shards into your wrist - ouch.

2) Battery life. Do I have to plug it into a wallwart (or USB) to recharge it regularly? How is that an improvement on 'once every 5 years or so', or 'never', as is the case with watches now? Presumably its network-connected, so battery life is going to be an issue, right?

3) Heat. If I'm running lots of neato apps on my watch, how is it going to stop my wrist getting all hot & sweaty?

Talk about jumping the shark...this seems to me to be what the NYT is doing. Since they have no real news to report, why not just make up (to quote wikipedia) some type of "gimmick" in a desperate attempt to keep viewers' interest?

I have not worn a watch in 10 years.The last time I remember wearing one, it was in 2001. I think watches have become obsolete. I would not be surprised if kinds (pre-teens) do not know what a watch is.

Talk about jumping the shark...this seems to me to be what the NYT is doing. Since they have no real news to report, why not just make up (to quote wikipedia) some type of "gimmick" in a desperate attempt to keep viewers' interest?

The NYT is the most credible of the current chorus supporting the rumor that Apple is developing something for the wrist. There are others reports from China and so forth that support the notion. As to what is it, we really don't know, but some sources suggest something with curved glass while others suggest something rubbery like Nike's fuelband.

For charging it, it would not surprise me if a wireless charging solution was adopted, simply because a cylindrical shape lends itself almost ideally to inductive charging.

The only interest I'd see for such a device (outside giving the hour/date =) would be if the purpose was simply to always wear at wrist your personal router connected 24/7 to internet through a mobile data plan, and offering to tether connection via WiFi to any device used by the user (mobile, tablet, laptop, etc).For battery concerns, the devices used would of course be capable to wirelessly charge the iWrist The bracelet would be first to aknowledge (vibration/sound/display) the user about any incoming call/iMessage/Notification/etc. as being the only device connected, until/unless the user would be in the area of one controlled iPhone/iPad/Mac.And for the fun, Siri always at hand for simple tasks, the screen wouldn't be much used (display of picture of call emiter, weather symbols, the like).

It could also be the ultimate identification device holding user's ID/DL/etc., a replacement of cards/checks/money for payments, and with no more per house/line/device connection but per user, then a perfect way to track users individually on the web and on the planet.Available in 2014, it would be perfect for 1984's 65th birthday

The NYT is the most credible of the current chorus supporting the rumor that Apple is developing something for the wrist. There are others reports from China and so forth that support the notion. As to what is it, we really don't know, but some sources suggest something with curved glass while others suggest something rubbery like Nike's fuelband.

My issue with the NYT report is that while I'm sure Apple has lots of different prototypes of potential products in their labs, including probably some sort of wristwatch-like thing, that doesn't mean they would ever bring those experiments to market. To quote the NYT piece:

Quote:

In its headquarters in Cupertino, Calif., Apple is experimenting with wristwatch-like devices made of curved glass, according to people familiar with the company’s explorations.

Hell, they're probably experimenting with Google Glass-like devices, and they're likely exploring devices without much visible UI that are controlled by a more advanced version of Siri, and I'm sure they're experimenting with bendable phones, but that doesn't mean it justifies the NYT headline that they're "Developing a Curved-Glass Smart Watch." (emphasis mine)

I don't think a watch can be full-glass, and I'm not sure about this rumor that its curvature will adapt to you wrist. I suppose the electronics in the device don't bend so easily. As for battery life, this is going to be a problem. I need a watch right now but I'm not willing to recharge it every few days...Also, any descent watch must be water proof, which will be difficult to achieve with UBS/Lightning/jack connectors.

First, I rarely need to know the time. If I do, I'm also nearly certain to have one or more of the following at hand: smartphone, iPad, Kindle, computers at work, computers at home, multi-function display in my car, or a clock on the wall.

Really? I didn't know that watches are no longer a thing. Any particular reason? What do you use to tell the time? A smartphone?

It might be a generation or location thing: in my group of friends* I only know one guy wearing watches, and he mostly wears them for fashion purpose. I haven't worn one since my first pager in the mid 90s, and yes now I just use my phone.

The main problem with an iWatch is that you have to persuade people with currently wear nice watches to wear your iWatch instead. People with nice watches tend to have lots of money and are part of the market for expensive Apple products.

Personally I wear a watch because it looks nice. An iWatch is going to have to look much nicer than my current collection before I use it.

The main problem with an iWatch is that you have to persuade people with currently wear nice watches to wear your iWatch instead. People with nice watches tend to have lots of money and are part of the market for expensive Apple products.

Personally I wear a watch because it looks nice. An iWatch is going to have to look much nicer than my current collection before I use it.

This.

I don't wear expensive watches, but I do have several and wear different ones based on my clothes. They tell time, and do a splendid job of it. But that's not the only reason I wear them. I'm sure Jonathan Ive will create a beautiful watch, but I don't see a way for it to replace all of my watches, and I don't want to replace all of my watches.

The main problem with an iWatch is that you have to persuade people with currently wear nice watches to wear your iWatch instead. People with nice watches tend to have lots of money and are part of the market for expensive Apple products.

Personally I wear a watch because it looks nice. An iWatch is going to have to look much nicer than my current collection before I use it.

Like Fat Cat said in the first post, a huge fraction of the under 35 crowd, at least, just doesn't wear watches at all. Personally, I used to... until the first time my watch broke after I'd started carrying a cell phone, at which point I just never bothered again. I'm now 30; that was about 13 years ago. Practically nobody I know wears a watch. There's a big empty market here for some any company that can actually build a wrist-mounted device with sufficiently compelling functionality.

Of course all of this does call into question what that functionality might be. Finding out the current time is something a watch does very well. If people are willing to reach for their phone even to perform even that task, why would they be willing to use a watch for tasks that it was actually worse at than a phone? Because that seems like it would be pretty much everything.

2) Battery life. Do I have to plug it into a wallwart (or USB) to recharge it regularly? How is that an improvement on 'once every 5 years or so', or 'never', as is the case with watches now? Presumably its network-connected, so battery life is going to be an issue, right?

3) Heat. If I'm running lots of neato apps on my watch, how is it going to stop my wrist getting all hot & sweaty?

Here are some examples of batteries in small devices and the typical battery life:

That Pebble draws an average of 1 mA, which is unlikely to give you a sweaty wrist.

Also note that the Pebble isn't even using the new low power Bluetooth 4 spec at this time. And I'm sure Apple's chip people can come up with something significantly more power efficient than the Pebble.

Having to charge your watch for a couple of hours once a week or so (or 10 minutes every day) is certainly less than ideal, but if the features are compelling, I'm sure the need to charge is not going to sink it.

I'm pretty sure you're not going to run many apps directly on the watch. And wifi or 3G certainly isn't going to be handled by the watch directly. Think of the watch as a tiny little extra display for your iPhone. I would like for it to be able to play back music autonomously, though.

Like Fat Cat said in the first post, a huge fraction of the under 35 crowd, at least, just doesn't wear watches at all. Personally, I used to... until the first time my watch broke after I'd started carrying a cell phone, at which point I just never bothered again. I'm now 30; that was about 13 years ago. Practically nobody I know wears a watch. There's a big empty market here for some any company that can actually build a wrist-mounted device with sufficiently compelling functionality.

Of course all of this does call into question what that functionality might be. Finding out the current time is something a watch does very well. If people are willing to reach for their phone even to perform even that task, why would they be willing to use a watch for tasks that it was actually worse at than a phone? Because that seems like it would be pretty much everything.

The problem with the iWatch is that you need a compelling reason for the non-watch crowd to wear a watch and for the watch crowd to switch. It might be do-able. I'm not sure.

If the I watch doesn't last for at least 5 days, I don't see it being much of a success.

Didn't people say something similar about smartphones, though? People get home and charge their laptops, their phones, and their tablets already. I don't see another device to charge as being a huge burden. If the utility is there, then habits will change.

If the I watch doesn't last for at least 5 days, I don't see it being much of a success.

Didn't people say something similar about smartphones, though? People get home and charge their laptops, their phones, and their tablets already. I don't see another device to charge as being a huge burden. If the utility is there, then habits will change.

Cell phones are easier to charge, and you can still use them while they're charging. The iWatch's appeal would seem to be that it's always on you. A cell phone's appeal is that it's always near you. To charge the iWatch I'm either tethering my body to one location, or removing it and thus any use it has to me. Neither one sounds appealing.

Not to mention I have four other watches that I like wearing, and am looking to get a few more. Until I see a feature list I'm going to be highly skeptical of the iWatch.

I believe solar panels do about 100 watts per square meter. So that's 10 mW per square cm. That's more than enough to power a Pebble or iPod shuffle. But only when exposed directly to the sun. Maybe if you make the solar cells big enough indirect (but still bright) light would be enough to keep the iWatch running without doing anything too taxing, but you'd have to depend on direct sunlight to charge it (it's dark half the day after all), which seems a non-starter.

I believe solar panels do about 100 watts per square meter. So that's 10 mW per square cm. That's more than enough to power a Pebble or iPod shuffle. But only when exposed directly to the sun. Maybe if you make the solar cells big enough indirect (but still bright) light would be enough to keep the iWatch running without doing anything too taxing, but you'd have to depend on direct sunlight to charge it (it's dark half the day after all), which seems a non-starter.

Sure, if you could have the thing in direct sun for hours a day, you'd probably be fine, but that's not realistic. In addition to the many other problems, a watch will often be covered by clothing. And most people these days spend most of their time indoors. Your average office worker, on a given weekday, might easily spend less than an hour a day outside at times of day with appreciable sunlight. I think you'd end up with something you had to go out of your way to place on sunny windowsills. Which is more of a hassle than conventional charging.

If the I watch doesn't last for at least 5 days, I don't see it being much of a success.

Didn't people say something similar about smartphones, though? People get home and charge their laptops, their phones, and their tablets already. I don't see another device to charge as being a huge burden. If the utility is there, then habits will change.

Cell phones are easier to charge, and you can still use them while they're charging. The iWatch's appeal would seem to be that it's always on you. A cell phone's appeal is that it's always near you. To charge the iWatch I'm either tethering my body to one location, or removing it and thus any use it has to me. Neither one sounds appealing.

Not to mention I have four other watches that I like wearing, and am looking to get a few more. Until I see a feature list I'm going to be highly skeptical of the iWatch.

90 percent of the time I charge my phone over night after one or two days of use, and it's a time I don't use my phone. Similarly, I don't wear my watch when I'm sleeping. It's also when I charge my iPad. I can see how if a person uses a watch 24/7 taking it off at night would be inconvenient, but I would have guessed "sleep = charge everything" would be common. I can't imagine any possible feature I'd be interested in that would keep me wearing a fancy watch while I slept.

90 percent of the time I charge my phone over night after one or two days of use, and it's a time I don't use my phone. Similarly, I don't wear my watch when I'm sleeping. It's also when I charge my iPad. I can see how if a person uses a watch 24/7 taking it off at night would be inconvenient, but I would have guessed "sleep = charge everything" would be common. I can't imagine any possible feature I'd be interested in that would keep me wearing a fancy watch while I slept.

Maybe I don't have enough gadgets, but having to plug in and recharge three, or four, or five devices every single night seems very tedious. I have an iPad 3, and usually do a full recharge every second or third day. If I had to charge a watch every day, I would probably forget to either charge it, or put it on. It would just end up being too much of a hassle.

2: small, slim, gorgeous minimal device made of flexible curved glass and rubber. I dont see it using much metal as it would be rather uncomfortable to wear while typing on a mac laptop. I could see it as a rounded square of curved glass. Domed like a pebble in a dark grey silver color with a rubber bracelet. Wireless charging, hopefully with a pad that will also charge some future wireless charging equipped iPhone model.

3: Sold cheap to encourage ecosystem lock in. $99 to $199.

I see its function as:

1: A portal to Siri that eliminates the need to hold an iPhone to your mouth. With the work Apple has been doing in microphones (as seen on the Retinal Pro and iPhone 5) this could really allow Siri to be part of everyday conversations seamlessly.

2: A way to view and dismiss notifications from a paired iPhone. Using gestures in the 4 cardinal directions and maybe a 'palm swipe' gesture.

3: Housing sensors, vibrator and a speaker that are accessible to apps on your iPhone or iPad via API's that would allow fitness, sleep tracking, remote control apps etc

I think the real challenge will be to make it tough enough (scratch, water, impact resistant), long lasting enough (7 days minimum) and cheap enough to get one on the wrist of every iPhone user. That and designing a UI that makes sense on a wrist. Fortunately those are areas where Apple excels: design, supply chain and software design.

Smart-phones are useful because they converge the functions of multiple devices. I really don't see why you would want another device.

I'd think that's a similar question as, "Why would you use a Blutooth headset with a phone? The phone has a speaker and mic."

I stopped carrying a watch on a regular basis when I started carrying an iPod Touch on a regular basis (and continued once I got an iPhone a few years later).

I've never carried a Bluetooth headset.

Why would I want to lug around yet another device? I don't see the utility in an iWatch until it can act on its own, replacing the iPhone (which I don't think it could ever do, due to the physical constraints of such a device).

Now, smart glasses (like Google Glass), I could get behind. Supplement something I have to wear, not something I got rid of years ago.

Because a hypothetical iwatch would extend and enhance the iPhone. Thus enabling new apps and ways to use the same services.

How?

The iWatch can only enhance the iPhone if it can communicate with the iPhone, and it can only communicate with the iPhone then you already have the iPhone with you.

I'm just not seeing the utility here.

I dont think anyone expects the hypothetical iWatch to replace an iPhone. The idea is to enhance the iPhone and enable different types of apps.

ZnU wrote:

targetnovember wrote:

I'd think that's a similar question as, "Why would you use a Blutooth headset with a phone? The phone has a speaker and mic."

Yes, well, as I was reading BryansAccount's post, I was mostly asking myself "Why would I do that from a watch when I can do it from a headset".

Perhaps if they could get a reasonably loud speaker into the thing, get Siri to work about 50% better, and provide an API for apps to toss arbitrary information onto its display.

Jonathon wrote:

targetnovember wrote:

ghub005 wrote:

Why would you need an iWatch if you already have an iPhone?

Smart-phones are useful because they converge the functions of multiple devices. I really don't see why you would want another device.

I'd think that's a similar question as, "Why would you use a Blutooth headset with a phone? The phone has a speaker and mic."

I stopped carrying a watch on a regular basis when I started carrying an iPod Touch on a regular basis (and continued once I got an iPhone a few years later).

I've never carried a Bluetooth headset.

Why would I want to lug around yet another device? I don't see the utility in an iWatch until it can act on its own, replacing the iPhone (which I don't think it could ever do, due to the physical constraints of such a device).

Now, smart glasses (like Google Glass), I could get behind. Supplement something I have to wear, not something I got rid of years ago.

"lug around"

The idea of "make a smaller iPhone and strap it to your wrist" is completely doomed to fail. The hypothetical iWatch will have to be all about enhancing and extending the iPhone/iPad. I am really not seeing the constant reference to BT headsets. Other then the fact that they use BT and can send/receive audio they are not at all similar to the hypothetical iWatch I described.

Not only could you use it for fitness, like Nike's fuelband, it would allow for tracking of your sleep as well as pedometry.

Hmm, if it can tell when you're sleeping I see at least one major use for it — automatically activating 'do not disturb' mode on your devices.

Or, even better, I've long said Apple should add a global 'presence' system to iOS — I should be able to identify myself as available, not available, sleeping, whatever, and (at least) other iOS users should have this information presented to them in contexts in which they're about to call/text me, i.e. in the Phone and Messages apps. This could be integrated with a system like that.